Search results

This study aims to explore, as an answer to the observed lack of knowledge about actual team learning behaviours, the characteristics of the actual observed basic team learning behaviours and facilitating team learning behaviours more in-depth of three project teams. Over time, team learning in an organisational context has been investigated more and more. In these studies, there is a dominant focus on team members’ perception of team learning behaviours.

A coding schema is created to observe actual team learning behaviours in interaction between team members in two steps: verbal contributions by individual team members are coded to identify the type of sharing behaviour and, when applicable, these individual verbal behaviours are build up to basic and facilitating team learning behaviours. Based on these observations, an analysis of team learning behaviours is conducted to identify the specific characteristics of these behaviours.

An important conclusion of this study is the lack of clarity about the line of demarcation between individual contributions and learning behaviours and team learning behaviours. Additionally, it is clear that the conceptualisations of team learning behaviour in previous research neglect to a large extend the nuances and depth of team learning behaviours.

Due to the innovative approach to study team learning behaviours, this study is of great value to the research field of teamwork for two reasons: the creation of a coding schema to analyse team learning behaviours and the findings that resulted from this approach.

Teams, teamwork and team learning have been the subject of many research studies over the last decades. This article aims at investigating and confirming the Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviours (TLB&B) model within a very specific population, i.e. police and firemen teams. Within this context, the paper asks whether the team's beliefs about the interpersonal context and the occurrence of three team learning behaviours (construction, co‐construction and constructive conflict) play a role in building and maintaining mutually shared cognition in a collaborative learning environment leading to a higher effectiveness. Self‐efficacy was added to the original model. Furthermore, the effect of team meeting frequency on the TLB&B model was investigated.

All constructs were measured using the validated Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviours Questionnaire completed with the self‐efficacy scale. Data were collected from 126 teams (n_individuals=769) and analysed using stepwise multi‐level regression analyses and analyses of variance.

The results show that the examined model generally applies to the data. Furthermore, self‐efficacy was found to be a valuable addition to the model.

This article validates an existing team learning model in a new context, namely that of response teams. Furthermore, it adds self‐efficacy as a predictor for team learning behaviours and team effectiveness. A multilevel‐approach was used as a valuable alternative of aggregating individual perceptions to team constructs.

This paper reviews the public reception of the Research Assessment Exercise 1996 (RAE) from its announcement in December 1996 to the decline of discussion at end May 1997. A model for diffusion of the RAE is established which distinguishes extra‐communal (or exoteric) from intra‐communal (or esoteric) media. The different characteristics of each medium and the changing nature of the discussion over time are considered. Different themes are distinguished in the public reception of the RAE: the spatial distribution of research; the organisation of universities; disciplinary differences in understanding; a perceived conflict between research and teaching; the development of a culture of accountability; and analogies with the organisation of professional football. In conclusion, it is suggested that the RAE and its effects can be more fully considered from the perspective of scholarly communication and understandings of the development of knowledge than it has been by previous contributions in information science, which have concentrated on the possibility of more efficient implementation of existing processes. A fundamental responsibility for funding councils is also identified: to promote the overall health of university education and research, while establishing meaningful differentiations between units.

The paper seeks to evaluate the views of manager‐academics on gender equity and research in one UK institution.

The paper draws on semi‐structured interviews with 22 manager‐academics in one UK institution, against a context of national data.

It was found that manager‐academics had little knowledge of the conceptual issues surrounding gender equity and used a discourse of choice and agency to explain continuing inequalities in the research careers of women academics.

While the case study was carried out in one institution, it replicates many of the issues raised by national studies and data.

Good practice in encouraging gender equity for women academics engaged in research includes role models, confidence and support networks, gender awareness training for managers, mentoring and building networks.

The paper provides new empirical data on gender equity and research in one UK university and critically analyses the gap between theory on gender equity and practice of manager‐academics. It provides a link between a micro‐agentic viewpoint and a meso‐institutional viewpoint and suggests that both these as well as a macro national and supranational view will give a fuller analysis of the issue of gender equity and research careers for women academics.

The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.

The purpose of the paper is to offer an insight into gender, context and entrepreneurial learning of women entrepreneurs in Germany.

The paper explores entrepreneurial learning of women entrepreneurs both conceptually and empirically. Section 1 introduces a conceptual framework, which allows analysing entrepreneurial learning both from an individual gender‐specific and from a context‐based perspective. Empirically, the paper explores how women entrepreneurs acquire the (business‐related) knowledge to start and grow an enterprise and the impact of regional, sector, family and social as well as macro environments in this regard. Findings are based on 31 in‐depths interviews with women entrepreneurs and 23 interviews with key experts.

It is found that the meso environment is more of an indirect influence; the macro and micro environments are strong influences on lives and decisions of women entrepreneurs, especially on their opportunity recognition. The business environment has both a direct and indirect influence.

The results demonstrate an ongoing need for a contemporary image of women's entrepreneurship in Germany. The major challenge for policy‐makers and support organizations therefore lies in propagating diverse entrepreneurial images and in incorporating the diversity of women's entrepreneurship and their specific learning approaches into policies and support offers.

The paper contributes a different and so far neglected perspective on entrepreneurial learning and opportunity recognition, drawing attention to the contextual influences and the embedding of cognitive processes.

We aim to compare multifunctionality, ecosystem services and just transition as overall conceptual approaches to understand agri-food systems.

This is a theory-motivated literature study.

This paper argues that the concepts of multifunctionality and ecosystem services are unsuitable for considering the systemic complexities of today’s food system in order to tackle its grave environmental and social problems. Furthermore, these two concepts tend to neglect the negative externalities of food systems and overemphasize the positive ones. The notion of just transition puts justice and sustainability at the center of agri-food studies and defines targeted systemic interventions in food systems.

While the approach of just transition is only starting to be widely applied to the agriculture–food nexus, we argue that it is better suited to re-orient diets, production processes, the value chain and labor conditions in a more sustainable direction. The just transition approach is also useful in drafting systemic policy innovations.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-09-2023-0740

ELSEWHERE in this number we list libraries which have Esent us copies of their annual reports which we are glad to have. Now and again we are able to elaborate on these, but in the present issue that has not been possible. We would say, however, that these reports are deserving of the attention of librarians generally, and of students at the library schools. They are records of work in progress, and they do suggest the development of library policy. The best of them are of textbook value.